Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="briggart" data-source="post: 9432154" data-attributes="member: 6805135">I did indeed use literal as faithful, sorry for the confusion, but my point is wider than the drawing, and it concerns your general assumption on the nature of the text, at least as how I understand it. Let me clarify. When discussing the Red Book of Westmarch you wrote:Your point, as I understand it, is that while the description of the Red Book of the Westmarch is incompatible with the earliest forms of books we know of, that description is not supposed to be a factually correct representation of the book, but since the author wanted the readers to have a sense of familiarity with the setting, he modeled it on an actual medieval text, because he felt that the story was not dependent on the actual form of the book and the readers could more readily engage with a book that looked like books they were familiar with, rather than collection of wax tablets or scrolls which is a more likely form for a book back then*. If my understanding is correct, my point is that your thesis basically cannot be falsified, which makes it pointless to discuss it.  If you starting assumption is that JRRT not only did a language translation but also a cultural translation, changing the descriptions of items, culture, etc. from the form they had at the time the events had actually taken place in universe, to something that would be more familiar with what contemporary audiences expected for a medieval setting, why do you keep asking for quotes? No quote will ever provide evidence that the cultures/artifacts/societies/etc. as described in the book do not match what we know of Europe/Earth between 10000-4000BC, because their description should not be taken literally, but reinterpreted according to their narrative purpose: "The description itself is little more than flavor."The way I see it, the whole point of this line of discussion is whether the description in the text matches the archeological record. I believe you also agree this to be the point, but in that case I don't think it's worth it pursuing any further given my understanding of your assumptions on "translation". If you think the point to be something else, then it's not clear to me what it is and how these questions/discussions on material cultures are relevant to it.*Technically,  after the events of the book because we don't have any evidence of writing before 4000BC. Which to me is in itself enough to conclude the events of the book are not compatible with the archeological record. You just need a single counterexample, otherwise we end up with "What have the Romans ever done for us?"</blockquote>

Verification